Stefan/DK7FC



Am 01.12.2010 20:16, schrieb mal hamilton:

Listen to experience and avoid moving backwards. Historically lots of
records have been achieved this past several years on LF. I would encourage
you and others to build on this experience and do something outstanding.
You ought to be congratulated with your advancement on the Touch 4g
technology.
de mal/g3kev

----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Lapthorn"<[email protected]>
To:<[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: LF: QRSS120 and grabbers


So why not QSY somewhere else in the spectrum Mal and teach yourself
something new? Some of us here are still learning on LF for the first time,
and can do without your "help".

Roger G3XBM

Sent from my iPod Touch 4g

On 1 Dec 2010, at 17:06, "mal hamilton"<[email protected]>  wrote:

I have some nice pics of my signal a few years back being received TA at
QRS 3 on 137 Kcs also 500 Kcs last year.
also NC1K was able to copy G3KEV and MM0ALM on normal CW in the past.
When there was an abundance of acty on 137 a few years ago I could copy

the

USA stations on QRS1 and normal CW.
For those serious about TA qso's a well engineered station and elevated
antenna will do the trick without a struggle. There is no need for QRS
slower than 30 sec dot.
VE1JG was a big player in the past along with VE1ZZ and both  able to copy
my CW
Many TA QSO'S have taken place in the past when there was lots of acty

from

the UK in particular. and I have made dozens of contacts especially around
this time of year. In the early days the USA had to reply xband usually

for

me on 7 Mcs because they did not have a permit for 137
At the present time some seem to be RE-INVENTING the wheel, obviously not
reading past history about LF.
de Mal/G3KEV


----- Original Message -----
From: "Stefan Schäfer"<[email protected]>
To:<[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 4:06 PM
Subject: Re: LF: QRSS120 and grabbers

Hi Mike,

Yes, some thoughts:

Am 01.12.2010 15:36, schrieb Mike Dennison

I believe the danger is to regard this as the 'optimum' speed for DX
working, simply because the S/N ratio is good.

Is that really a danger?

  In practice, there is
another factor in play. There is often rapid and deep fading on a DX
path, often resulting in only parts of letters being received at this
speed, even though the peak signal is quite strong (see many of the
pictures of transatlantic reception regularly posted on this group).

The situation becomes worse if the final aim of experimenting with a
path is to have a two-way DX QSO. Even exchanging minimal
information, a QSO will take several hours, during which time the
conditions must hold up.

When was the last real QSO done in QRSS>= 30? I rember the contact
between VE7TIL and JA7NI but most of the active people are just
transmitting a character (representing their callsign) in beacon mode. I
have never seen a "CQ ... K" in 60 or 120.
So if one just wants to transmit a beacon signal it doesn't matter if
there is some QSB. As an example, XGJ is monitored very often most of
the nights. If the G would be lost (X_J)and in the next turn the J would
be lost (XG_), anyway everbody would know it't (XGJ). Furthermore the DX
interested OMs gets the confirmation on the other grabbers.
If a QSO is wanted, i fully agree with your opinion. But a QSO means
that both stations are sitting in front of the PC, so they can change
the RX to the wanted QRSS/DFCW mode.
Anyway, i am providing both QRSS-60 and QRSS-120 for TA and EU, so
people may chosse what they like :-)

Take a look at VE7TIL's excellent DCF39
graph to see how short a good DX opening usually is - perhaps an hour
if you are lucky.

...which wouldn't be enough for a (real) QSO in QRSS-60 but enough for
"FC" or "NM" or "NI" in QRSS-120.

The very few who have had transatlantic QSOs have used QRSS30 or at
most QRSS60. I am not aware of a successful two-way involving a
longer dot length.

I would suggest that DX beacons and grabbers use a =maximum= of 60s
dot length (though a second grabber screen could be provided for 120
etc if desired). In my opinion this would be more likely to result in
useful propagation data.

Done.

Any thoughts?

Mike, G3XDV
==========

73, Stefan